The Cellar Image of the Day is just a section of a larger web community: bright folks talking about everything. The Cellar is the original coffeeshop with no coffee and no shop. Founded in 1990, The Cellar is one of the oldest communities on the net. Join us at the table if you like!

Why that looks like a search light, or satellite dish, or something non-threatening.
That's what the Somali pirates that tried to hijack the Maersk Alabama, again, probably thought. Wrong.

Quote:

Until now, it wasn't widely known that the US Defense Department was sharing the so-called Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) with commercial cruise ships. The weapon is essentially a small dish that beams hellishly loud noise that is deafening but not lethal. Weighing 20 kilograms and as big as a TV satellite dish, the device looks deceptively harmless. But once trained on its target, it blasts a tight beam of painful siren-like sound.

NY and Boston cops have them, I want one too, but $30k is a little steep.

In an attack on the cruise ship, Seaborn Spirit, last week...

Quote:

It's not known how the grinning pirates 160 kilometers off the coast of the Horn of Africa reacted as they suddenly were hit by the LRAD. But they were close, and the closer one is to the sonic cannon, the worse the effect is. It's possible they received permanent hearing damage, but at the very least they experienced an excruciating headache and ear pain to the point that they could no longer see or hear. They also quickly lost the desire to board the ship. Of course, even Captain Blackbeard would have quickly set sail when confronted with 150 decibels of pure noise.

Wonder how long you'd have to keep a person in the zone, to do that?
How about the neighbors cat?

The "area" is thousands of square miles, and trying to hit those speedboats with a torpedo would be like trying to shoot fruit flies with a rifle.
IF, the sub was in the right place, at the right time, a deck gun would have a better chance.
I think aircraft is a better choice, but the ship has to hold them off long enough.dar512 Thursday Nov 19 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The "area" is thousands of square miles, and trying to hit those speedboats with a torpedo would be like trying to shoot fruit flies with a rifle.
IF, the sub was in the right place, at the right time, a deck gun would have a better chance.
I think aircraft is a better choice, but the ship has to hold them off long enough.

I'm sure you're right, Bruce. But I bet it would be fun to go Q-shipping through that area.xoxoxoBruce Thursday Nov 19 10:56 AM

Remember folks, you can kill 'em, but you can't maim them. Blinding lasers are contradictory to the Geneva Conventions; I can only assume that high-energy directed audio weapons will be added soon. Emphasis is mine:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In 1998 to provide independent assessment on human effects, data, and models for the use of 'non-lethal weapons' on the general population,[15] the TECOM Technology Symposium in 1997 concluded on non-lethal weapons, “Determining the target effects on personnel is the greatest challenge to the testing community,” primarily because "the potential of injury and death severely limits human tests." However, "directed energy weapons that target the central nervous system and cause neurophysiological disorders may violate the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980. And weapons that go beyond non-lethal intentions and cause “superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering” could violate the Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977."

Interference with breathing poses the most significant, potentially lethal results.
Cavitation, which affects gas nuclei in human tissue, and heating, can result from exposure to ultrasound and can cause damage to tissue and organs.
Studies have found that exposure to high intensity ultrasound at frequencies from 700 kHz to 3.6 MHz can cause lung and intestinal damage in mice. Heart rate patterns following vibroacoustic stimulation has resulted in serious negative consequences such as arterial flutter and bradycardia. Researchers have concluded that generating pain through the auditory system using high intensity sound resulted in a high risk of permanent hearing damage.

xoxoxoBruce Thursday Nov 19 11:29 AM

Quote:

The LRAD was designed by a small San Diego, California firm called American Technology Corporation. The company has sold thousands of the acoustic cannon since 2003, including large orders to the US Armed Forces. Following the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole in October 2000 that killed 17 sailors, the Pentagon wanted a non-lethal weapon to defend its ships that wouldn't necessarily kill potential attackers.

Pie Thursday Nov 19 11:44 AM

To reiterate, killing is allowed, but not weapons that maim as their sole or main capability.

xoxoxoBruce Thursday Nov 19 12:00 PM

They are not maimed, they are temporarily disabled, and thwarted. They are only used to deter the pirates long enough until somebody can come and kill them.

But anyway, pirates don't come under the Geneva Convention, they're listed under vermin.

zippyt Thursday Nov 19 05:08 PM

I say Fuck'em they deserve what ever they get ,
Quad .50 cal All Around

Cloud Thursday Nov 19 06:52 PM

fantastic if you want to kill a Sentinel. Why aren't the Guides up in arms about this?
see me if you have any idea what I'm talking about here!

spudcon Thursday Nov 19 06:58 PM

What are you talking about? I can't see you.

Cloud Thursday Nov 19 06:59 PM

it's just as well, really!

hipshot Thursday Nov 19 08:39 PM

Didn't "Elrad" used to open for Zeppelin?

TheDaVinciChode Thursday Nov 19 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dar512

I'm sure you're right, Bruce. But I bet it would be fun to go Q-shipping through that area.

American Q-Boats are highly ineffective and unsuccessful, it seems... each boat failing in her designated mission... and the only war-time fire, being friendly in nature.

But... Americans have always enjoyed friendly-fire, I suppose.

*Waits for the Americans to get up-in-arms, to defend their inadequately-trained military.*

Before you do, however, take into consideration how many "friendly fire incidents" there have been, from WWI - Present, or even sooner, if you can be bothered with the research... Don't just observe American military records, but others, too... Compare all data, from as many countries as you care to research, and tell me which country has had the most "friendly fire incidents," over all. Include, if you wish, civilian casualties/mortalities/"collateral damage," for a better picture, too.

I'd certainly not want to be on the right side of America, during a war. You're safer against them!*

I'm with DaVinci - most of the way. The US military has a pretty bad reputation for friendly fire incidents. BUT ... given a choice of Australia Vs [Insert powerful foreign nation of your choice] either with or without US involvement, we put up with the firendly fire because, overall, it is worth it.

Looks bad in the papers, though.

Adak Friday Nov 20 04:20 AM

The BBC news reported that the sonic device didn't stop the pirates in their (second!) attack on the Maersk Alabama. Ineffective, but they aren't sure why.

The shipping line had taken the precaution of hiring some security troops to repel pirate attacks. They worked.

spudcon Friday Nov 20 07:39 AM

And they were very friendly while firing on the pirates.

newtimer Friday Nov 20 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The "area" is thousands of square miles...

The legitimate ships are following their course, not wandering blindly. A sub would hang out near that shipping lane and just wait for the pirates to come to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

...trying to hit those speedboats with a torpedo would be like trying to shoot fruit flies...

...shooting loud fruit flies with a rifle that aims for the sound.

1) Speed is relative. And relative to a torpedo, a speedboat is granny limping upstairs with her cane, hoping to catch the end of Lawrence Welk Show before going to bed at 8:00.
2) Speedboats aren't made to be stealthy while they're buzzing along the surface. But subs are made to detect folks who are trying to be stealthy. Not much challenge.

There are two kinds of boats in the oceans: submarines and targets.glatt Friday Nov 20 10:49 AM

there is no shipping lane there.

Ships used to stay close to shore to keep the trip short as they went around Africa. Then the pirates came, so they moved out further into the ocean. The pirates followed, now the ships are scattered hundreds of miles off shore with the pirates sniffing around for them. Bruce is right that it's a HUGE area.

monster Saturday Nov 21 12:14 AM

Americans > friendly fire rep

=

British > bad teeth rep

Elspode Saturday Nov 21 01:17 AM

Why the shipping companies don't just put some heavy hardware on their vessels and blow these bastards out of the water is puzzling to me. I guess it has something to do with bringing armed vessels into ports being a no no under international law.

This piracy is going to continue as long as ransoms are being paid out and the risks are relatively low, which continues to be the case. If 80% of the piracy events ended in the deaths of the pirates, instead of in success, it would probably become much more rare.

ZenGum Saturday Nov 21 01:34 AM

What is really needed is an effective government in Somalia. Anyone up for a re-invasion? 3rd front?

Adak Saturday Nov 21 03:07 AM

I doubt if you could make Somalia "right" with an invasion.

Millions of people, armed to the teeth, stubbornly supporting different brands of Islam - they can't even agree on what kind of Islamic law they want.

Getting them to agree to the kind of reforms that would be necessary to get Somalia back up on it's feet with a working government, is just not going to happen in that kind of absolutist atmosphere.

Best thing is just to leave them alone to sort it out. It's an exercise in futility to try and cram good government down people's throats, if they don't want to support it.

Eventually, they'll see "this ain't working, we need to make some compromises and quit fighting amongst ourselves, for the good of the country". Or they won't.

Toughening up the international laws on piracy and putting some security personnel on board, with the weapons they'll need, might have to do, in the meantime.

xoxoxoBruce Saturday Nov 21 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtimer

1) Speed is relative. And relative to a torpedo, a speedboat is granny limping upstairs with her cane, hoping to catch the end of Lawrence Welk Show before going to bed at 8:00.
2) Speedboats aren't made to be stealthy while they're buzzing along the surface. But subs are made to detect folks who are trying to be stealthy. Not much challenge.

C'mon, how in hell are you going to torpedo a speed boat;
1- that's less than 20 ft long,
2- draws less than a foot of water,
3- is staying out of the troughs so they can see,
4- is jumping over waves & wakes,
5- is buzzing around a bigass ship that you don't want to sink?

Of course it's a moot point if you can't even find them. TheDaVinciChode Saturday Nov 21 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak

I doubt if you could make Somalia "right" with an invasion.

Millions of people, armed to the teeth, stubbornly supporting different brands of Islam - they can't even agree on what kind of Islamic law they want.

Getting them to agree to the kind of reforms that would be necessary to get Somalia back up on it's feet with a working government, is just not going to happen in that kind of absolutist atmosphere.

Best thing is just to leave them alone to sort it out. It's an exercise in futility to try and cram good government down people's throats, if they don't want to support it.

Eventually, they'll see "this ain't working, we need to make some compromises and quit fighting amongst ourselves, for the good of the country". Or they won't.

Toughening up the international laws on piracy and putting some security personnel on board, with the weapons they'll need, might have to do, in the meantime.

Flatten it. Start again.

That'd solve the piracy issue, the backwards-country issue, and, in part, the over-population issue of whichever country did the flattening...

England could sure use a bit more space...

They have no exports of value, nor of use. The world would not miss them.ZenGum Saturday Nov 21 05:18 PM

I should have included a tongue-in-cheek smiley. I doubt anyone wants to try any more nation building just now.